Film Genre: Hollywood and Beyond

Contents

Prcf~lce Fdillhurgh L'ni\er.. . it~ Pre.. . :-. I,td 22 (;c(Jq.~:e Square, Ldinhurgh '1\ P"'''!

ill \ \01101\

P" Ehrhard!

h,· "-()iIlOni~l, \ Lll1che...;tcr, JIlll p~'il1led ~lI1d hound in (irc.11 l~riLlin h~ :\11[0'" I{O\\l' I ,Id. (,hipIKllhalll. \\ il"

.\ CIP rLTord for Ihi...; hook i:-. ;\\
Ol1'l"11/

.rOSie'}

II /fJ'S

(1976)

Clint Eastwood's Tile OllIla}}' ]0.1'1')' H'ales is by no means as aggressi\ely 're\'isionist' a genre entry as many of the decade's other notable \,"esterns, from Arthur Penn's I,ll/Ie BIP, Hall and Ralph :'\elson's sensationally gruesome Sli/tIler Bille in 1rt', compared to log'istical, planning and supply ;)peratit\\ ~lr period. This interpretation typically imokes such Llctors as the \:collomic uphea\als ine\itably imol\ed in the eon\ersion fi'om a \\ar to a peacetime economy, including: labour unrest (as workers agitated for pa~ rises postponed for se\eral ye~lrS in the interests of the war effort) and job losses. One particularly \'exed issue relates to gender conf1ict in the workplace. The ne\\-found (though limited) economic fi'eedom enjoyed by \\omen l1lohilised into the industri~ll \\orkforce during the \\ar pro\oked some ~ln \iety if not outright hostility in their return\:d boyfioiends and husbands ill-feeling returned in kind \\hen \\omen \\ere laid off, as fi-cquently occurred, to make room for returning male \\orkers. It has been argued that the

ZI8

FILM GENRE

manifold negati\'e portrayals of predatory \\omen who aspire to or actually achie\'e (usually though illicit means and at the expense of men) a degree of financial and sexual independence can be seen as a phobic projection of male fear of and hostility towards female autonomy .. Hlldret! Pierre (19-1-S), the story of a wife who lea\'es her indolent husband and becomes a successful businesswoman, only for her mismanagement of her domestic life to lead to tragedy, has been read as a cautionary allegory of women in the wartime workplace (althoug'h the war is never mentioned in the film, adapted from a 19-1-1 James ,\1. Cain nowl): the final shot, in which a chastened Mildred, reunited with her husb.md, passes by a pair of chan\"Omen on their knees scrubbing the floors of the forbidding, gloomy police headquarters, may be seen as a symbolic relegation of \vomen back to their socially 'appropriate' roles (see Cook, J()78: 79-80).' Howner, Thomas (I s wrspecti\'e, as a self-made man whose role IS to expose the corruptIOns of a ~lcc,dent ruling elite (such as the Sternwood family in The B/~f{ Sleep), to reign in thc excesses of o\'ermighty 'combines' and in so doing to reassert the "deuc of a suitahly humanised capitalism. (This self-conception and its delusions seems explicitly to inform Roman Polanski's revisionist portrayal of the pri\ate eye in CIIII/i/llirT''', H)7-1-: see below.) HO\\'e\'er, it runs somewhat coUllter to the perception of IlIIlr as a genre that pays unusual attention to \\orking-class experience, often with conscious political moti\'ations. Brian '\e\e (Il)()z: QS -70) notes the in\'olvement in IlIIlr production of numerous memhers of the H)-I-0S Hollywood Left:- including such later \'ictims of the blacklist as directors Edward Dmytryk, ,'\braham Polonsky (Flirce lir Fe'i!) and Jules Dassin (The Si/ked Cily, 1l)-l-8), writer-director Rohert Rossen (Blld)' lIIIj :';11/11, 1l)-I-7) and producer ,'\drian Scott (FlIr,.ll'ell "H)' Llln,/)', Cross/ire)and cmphasises the prominence of class, illicit power and authoritarian power structures in nHny II II irs (see ~dso .'\ndersen, 1
1

224

FILM ut.NKE

joke too at the expense of Gittes's carefully-modelled Holly\\ood-style 'star' persona); in the course of his imcstigations a crippled farmer heats him ~enseks~ with his crutch; and so on. ,\hO\e all, Gittes mistakes the intrigue IOta whIch he st umbles for a conyentional, if far-reaching, story of civic corruption, and his employer/lmcr belyn Cross (Faye Duna\\ay) for a classic femme fatale: \\hen in LlCt she is the \ictim of her own penerse and u,ns~r~pul.ous.f~1the~', \yhose incestuous Elthering of a daughter upon EYelyn slgmfIes tItamc deSIres that arc transgressiye far beyond CJittes's horizons _ asked what he \\ants, Cross simply replies 'the future, \ lr Gittes. The future.' \Vhile the tortuous narrati\e of Ylg!J! .\loc'es - i1l\olying .1 promiscuous tcenage run.may, the fringes of the moyie industry, sexual C'\ploitation and a complex antiques-snlllg'gling ring - is c10sn to traditional I/oi,. territory, I larry i\:Iosehy (Gem: Hackman) is equally rudderless - a metaphor dnastatingly literalised in the film's final high-ang-Ic inuge of the \\ounded Harry helplessl~ circling around in a boat ironically named Poill! or I iell'. HarrY is passiye-ag;gressi\c, e.lsily manipulated, and tile dead ends of'his il1\cstiga;ion in the film parallel the frustrations and disappointments of his pnsonallife, i\S an adapution of Raymond Ch,lI1dler's final (and most self-consciously Iitnan) non:l, Rohert\ltman's Th,. IAil1!!. (;ood/J)'e is of all the llJ70S priyateeye films thc most securel\ locltnl in I/oi,.'s traditional narrati\ c territorv, Ho\\c\cr, :\Itman's Philip .\L1r1mn: (\\hom he conu:i\(:d ,IS 'a loscr', also the judgement passed on .\ larlo\\ e h~ his treacherous fi'iend Terr~ Lenno\:) is eyen less the classical model th
2J7

I'J YOUR FACE: THE RISE OF A POST-CLASSICAL GENRE

\lost ,1ceoulltS of the ;\'e\\ Holly\\ood identi(\ the period 1975-77 as a ~\,Itershed in the transition from the Ne\\ \Vave-ish 'Hollywood Renaissance' period to the popcorn era of the Il)Ros an~ since (see, for instance, Sch,~tz, 1."in" 200~) But neither the actIOn hIm nor the blockhuster matenalI 1)1) ",~.l'\.t'" • ise
239

ticket prices for its premiere engagement fixed at the unheard-of sum of $1) .IIld the most profitable, \\ith domestic box-office re\enues estimated at $3 million. Subsequently, physical scale, stars, cost and length would all mark out the blockbuster. Griffith himself \\as responding to the enormous success on t he liS market of recent antiquarian Italian epics such as Cahir/a (19 I3) .llld QIIO l-adis? (19 q) and effecti\e1y 'American ising' the mode after his own pI"C\ious film in the Italian style,]/h/ilh oj"Belhlllio (I9q) (see Bowser, H)90). \\ith his nest production, IllllileulI/u' (1917), Griffith aimed even higher, recreating Biblical Babylon on a scale of stupe(\ing Ia\ishness; however, llIlli/cralice's ambitious attempt to esplore an abstract concept in a set of intcrlinked scenarios sp.mning centuries pro\ed Ell' less popular with audiences th.ln Birlh oj" a Salllill's simple (and relctionary) family saga. A nascent Holly\\ood deri\ed t\\in lessons from Griffith's experiences: that the blockbuster's massi\e earnings potential \\"as matched by colossal risks; and that to minimise those risks as tlr as possible simplicity of conception, Llmiliarity of subject matter and emphasising action mcr reflection were a more promising rl'cipe than philosophical speculation to appeal to a di\erse mass public. Thus the Llilure of IlIllilculIlC( confirmed that the preferred mode of subsl'Ljul'nt blockbusters \\ould be, and continues to be, melodramatic. Prior to the Second \YorlLl War, in Llct, ultra-high-budg'et spectacle films J...nm\n as 'superspecials' - featured only intermittently on the major studios' production schedules, \yhich \\ere mainly geared to offset risk through massproducing a di\erse slate of releasl's to all market sectors in a steady stream ~ ear-round, rather than emphasising one production at the expense of all the othLTs; the best-kl1(mn pre\\ar 'superspecial', the hug'ely successful GUIIC 11 lilt Iltc Utlld (19.19), \\as produced independently hy Dayid O. Selznick, and \\ .IS onl' of only three pictures released by Selznick International Pictures that \ear..1 \s .'\eale (zoo,r -I-S-50) outlines, it \\as the film industry's changing; post \\ ar fortunes that propelled large-scale prod uctions back to the fi)re, as thl' majors radically reshaped their operations in the early H)50S in the [Ice or shrinking' audiences and the loss of their e:xhibition arms. In an era when occlsional, rather than routine, mO\-ing-going \\as becoming' the norm, highprofile one-of-a-kind 'specials' seemed a good \\ay to dra\\ this increasingly sl'kcti\e public into theatres. :herage budgcts increased markedly during the [l):;OS as blockbusters took on increasing importance, both in defining; a studio's public profile and in its annual .lccounts. This period according;ly Sa\\ the return of the prmerbial 'cast of thousands' in remakl's of silent-era Biblical .md Roman epics such .IS Tltc TCII COIIl/lli/lldlllcr/ts (19:;6), QIIO Vi/dis? (1l):;I) and BCI/-HI/r (19:;9) alongside ne\Y!y minted peplum behemoths like nlc Ro!Jc (H):;3) and Cleopalra (1963) and globe-trotting costume capers like Jrlil/I/d tlte 11"IIr/d ill Eigltt) , Days (19:;9), their spectacular aspects further

240

THE ACTION BLOCKBUSTER

FILM GENRE

enhanced by colour and the new widescreen f(lrmats (see below). True to Hollywood traditions, postwar blockbusters relied heavily not merely on scale - crowds of milling extras and enormous sets - but on their deployment in dynamic action sequences invohing daring stunt work: among the most celebrated were the chariot race at the Circus Maximus in Ben-Hllr and the enormous battle scenes in Spa rtaclis (1960). Blockbusters showcased the leading male action stars of the time, such as Victor Mature (Samson and Delilah, 1949; DcmetrillS ilnd tlie Gladiators, 195-t), Charlton Heston (The Ten Commandments, Bt'n-Hllr, EI Cid, 196 I) and kirk Douglas (The VI/.:ings, 1959; Spartacus). Visual and photographic effects also sometimes played a part, notably in the parting of the Red Sea in The Tell COIIl/na ndlllClits. Yet in general these films were stylistically quite unlike today's breathlessly kinetic action spectacles. On the contrary, their gTandiose physical scale tended to lend narrative and staging a ponderous quality while dialogue in search of classical gril7'itas too often came out sounding leaden and stilted - qualities that in its own time also c1e~lrly separated the epic blockbuster from the faster-moving, quicker-witted action-adventure film. Some of these difficulties were related to the problem of satisfactorily integrating' narrati\c and spectacle, discussed below. An important bridge to the contemporary action blockbuster was the disaster cycle of the early 1970s, particularly Invin Allen's big-budget productions The PoseidoJl "~ihe/ltlire (1971), Eartllljllilke (H)7-t) and The TOIPering In/i'rl1o (1975, jointly financed by Warner Bros. and Cniversal, then a highly unusual move+ that would become more common in the 1990S era of the $100+ million picture, for example Tilallii, J()97). Clearly, aspects of these films - for instance, the emphasis on costly \'isual effects, large-scale action sequences, simple narrative premises and novel technologies like Sensurround (used for Eartllljllake and Rollerroaslcr, 1976) foreshadow aspects of the contemporary blockbuster. Ho\vever, their general st~ listic conservatism, including a reliance on all-star casts studded with Old Hollywood faces (Ava Gardner, Shelley Winters, Fred .\staire, William Holden) rooted them recognisably in the old-style blockbuster culture of the J()50S and early 1960s. Thus the successful alloying of the action-adventure film and the blockbuster was by no means predictable. :\nd in Llet, neither.la II'S nor Sia r 11 itrs, the two enormously successful films usually credited with transforming "Jew Hollywood ~lesthetics and economics, in themsehes typified the action blockbuster th.u would achieve such unprecedented industrial centrality in Hollywood in the 19Ros and since. Rather, the most important elements from each - elements themselves artfullv synthesised and refined from current trends - \vould subsequently be distilled into the new action blockbuster. ]illI'S, as has often been noted, bears affinities to the dis~lster film as \vell as other mid-H)7os genres such as the conspiracy film (in its portrayal of the

1',

..LI.l

~Ittempts of .\mity's petty bourgeois elite to suppress news of the rogue shark

in their own economic interests), \vhile also foreshadowing the later stalkand-sLIsh horror pictures . .\clore character-centred than most of its successors, 7
c:.

,,0.

I.hcl'\\l'in, R. (1l)I)S) 'The Erotic Thrilln', Posl S(rJpl, 17·,r 25-33· I.lkqeins, \\. (I{)SI)) R/I1'.i orSprJlI.~: Thc (,'ICI/I 11111' I/lld tI,C BIr/h o(lh1' .Ilotlcm /g1'. '\ew \ or\..: l-Iou~hton .\Iiftlin. lisdc, J (200~) 'The \\'ild East: ] kconstructing the I.ang'uag'e of Genre in the Holh wood Lastern', CIIICllIi/ 70111'111/1, +1.+: (,S 1)+. I."l'nstein, s. (Il)H)' 'Dickens, Griffith and Film TmLl\', in Eisenstl'in, S. (J()+l)) FillII Forlll. I,ondon: Dennis Dobson, pp. J()5' 23+· 1.ldthniotis, D. (200+) 'Spag'hetti \\'estern, Genre Criticism and "Miona] Cinema: ReIkfinin~ the Frame of Reference', in Tasker, Y. (ed.) (200+), 301) 27. I:Jl'\, G. (2~0 J) 'Find ing' the People's \\ar: Film, British Collecti\ e .\ lemon, and World \\ ar II', l",,'ril'III,' III L')'has(>I/(t'.

I.ondon: \\'alltll)\\er. "llses, [. (Iljhlj) IllIri~.I)II.' 1/ ,'.,1. London: Thames &. Iludson. klJ'in, \1. (llJlj+l 'Be\ond the .\merican IJre,nn: Film ,1l1d the I.>,perience of IkCe,n', in klein, \1. (cd.) (['!'!+), .111 ,lllIallilil /IiI/( COllllly: POsllI',lr Cllftllr,' "lid PIiIiII'S ill Iftl' I .S.. I. London: Pluto, pp. 20h 31. h,lcinh'll1s, elll ~o: r IC)-22. Klmger, B. (l()C)~'I) '''Local'' Genres: The Ho]I\\\'()ou\uult Film in the r950s', in Bratton ]., Cook,]. anu Gledhill, c:. (eds) (\c)9~)\lclodrall/l/: SII/gl' PllIlire S(rl'l/gl/lldl/ SI/II/lcd S('((I/Id /1 IIr/d 11111' \loc·/('S. '\CII York: Free Prcss. .

(200,), hI 71. I.l'\da,]. (2002) 'Black-.\udiencc \\c'stcrns '1I1d the Politics of Cultural Identification in the

Kortc, B. (2001) 'The (;randt:lthers' \\ar: Re-Imagining \Yorlu \\"11' Onc in British "'o\els and Films of the l!'nl)' alit! f)ef>I'i'SSIOIl, I<j20 19-/ 1.

Columhia L ni \ ersit\ Press. I'cll LLlkur, \1. (200.1) 11I,!1i/1I PIlf>III"r CIIICIII,I: li/dllSlr)', Idt'olllg1' ilild CIIIlS(/IlIISIit'SS. Creskill, '\J: Hampton Press. Penl~\, (:. (11)IIIi1r ,'\(11'11«' "lit! SeT 1Il,ll/{alm. I,ondon: \erso. Petl'l'~on, C S. (H)IH) 'Spe'lking; f,)r the P,lst', in .\ltlner, C .\., II. O'Connor, C. A. ami SanLh\eiss, \1. .\. (eds) (11)1)+) Till' U,lilr'! HIslor)' orll,e .IIIIt'IHilll lIesl. 1\e\\ York: Oxford Lni\ersit\ Press, pp. 7+,,(H). Petro, P. (1()I)J) ]oyless Slre(I.'·: /'-1111"'11 alit! .lh'I/lilml/{all( R(f'rt'sCillalilili III If'l'lI/li/r (;,'m"IIl)'. Princeton, '\.1: Princeton Lni\ersit\ Press. Pierson, \1. (2002) Sf'I'(lill l,jli'(ls: Sldl III SCl/I'(!I 0/ lIollt!a. '\e\\ York: Columbia

Lni\crslt\ Press. l'ILTSOn, \1. (1l)1)1)) '(Jjl Effects in Holh\\ood Science tiction Cinem'l II)Xl) I()I).:;: The \\'Ollder Years', S'T!'I'II, +0.2: ISS-7 h . Place, .I :\. (11)711) '\\ol11en in Film '\oir', in haplan, E..\. (L'LI.) (HJiS), 35 (,7· Poague, L. (200,) 'Th,lt Past, ThiS Present: Historicizing' John Ford, (1).)1)', in (,rant, B. (cd.) (200'3) ]01111 Fours St'lgeeo'lch. Cambridg'c: Clmbridge L ni\ersin Press. Polan, D. (II)S(,) I'OIl'I'!' illld f'al'illllll,,: 1h.'/IIf)', .\arral"·c illld II,,' ·IIIIt'I'((,11I Cillell/a ilj-/O

k.

il;':;O. '\e\\ York: Columbi'l Lni\ersit\ Press. Prince, S. (Il)I)X) S''''iI~'1' CIII: L ni\ crsin of Illinois Press.

I,ondon: Rourll'd~l' SI,mflcld,P. (l!)l)S) :j)i\ie C,)\\bm, ;tnd Illul's ) odds: Thc Str' IV';'I. '\L'\\ York:\bLlms, \\'inokllt', \1. (HJ,!I) 'Laing: Children Is \\-ron,,: The I:thnic Famih in C;ang;stcr Films 01

the 1I0s .1I1d l)OS', Sldll 0 SOl/lid, I: 10-I"

296

FILM GENRE

Winokur, 1'11. (1995) '\1ari,:inal ",bri,:inalia: The ,·\friean-·\meriean Yoice in the '\oulelle Gangster Film', Thc / chcl f.lj,111 'hll/' , 35: H)-'J2. Winston, B. ([q()3) 'The Docume'ntan' Film as Scientific Inscription', in Renlll, .\1. (cd.) (H)93) Tllcor/sinp f)IH/llllclllllr)'. I,undon: Routledge. Wollen, P. (HJ9Z) SllIgill' III rill' Rllill. London: BFl. \Vood, A. (zooz) ii'dolllscimec

/11

Index

CO/II (ll)lJ'+), 5 Uodll'tl/I (Jl'illl,~e, 1 (llJ, I), I XX C/",,. h'1I'(jllllli'/'S "lilli' Tlllr'/ f.',",! (llil71. IS", ISH. 1l)1 2,24-4-

C1U'C!', Carul, IllS CIl/JrO (I<JS(,), 2,+,

1)2

(;,,11111, I 11111''/ SI,II,'s ,\I",.sl/ltll (Ilil,n, ,II C~liI1, Janll'~ \

1., 21 S. 21~, 22_~. e,il1e, \licl17 -X, 7 1 , 73, 75, iX, 27-t IlIrt'l,~1I L'lIl'!'cs/'lIlllll'll[

(IlHo), 23+, 23X

Fori '!,,,,lre (19+ S ), S7 1'01'1)' (;IIIIS (11)S7), 1>.,

-If' SIIt'
IIlslI Freed

-i)

!'['e(,d Lllil (\l(j\l), S3, X7, 9+, liS, 10[, [02

Filr Frillli 11,,11;','11 (2002), ", +1)

I'r,'II,11 LOIlI/,'dli'lI, Till' (Ilill), 2+7, 2Shl1

"'1"bindn. Rainer \\ ernLT, +0 1,/1111 /111'111 1'1'/,1") lilt' I,," ([()So), 160 I'i{,-,j (;It'
IIl'fTl'rnan, hClin, Ih) h IH'~t'I1l()I1:, 22, -+ 9+,

I, () I:

250~

(;ril'\c~()n,

I.ee, ryl, 137

(iriftirh, I) \\', 3 I, 32, +2 +, 1311, 2.,S, 255 (iriftiths, TrclOr, 2hh

Grist, I ,l'i~htOll, 2zh, 230 (;I'I/'/+ h

Ilo/OClLIsl tilm, 20l), 21'2' 7 11""1/(1 ""lllill'lll" (, ql) I), 27 6 h,llll', hatherine, I 10, I I +, I I I> haplan, 1'., \nll, (J+ h,lrloff, !lori" 11>2 h,lIan, EIi'I, 30, .P helll'r, ,\Il'\, 25 2 , 25+, 277 ""l~ IIlId I.'IIIIII/!Y (I q(q), I 10

""1,~ 111111 I, lJlt' (Il)51», SIl klll~ kllll,~ (Il) ,13), Il)(i

kllig IIr]II~,: (1 1,11111'1I (IlH+), zq, Zl5 I,ll 11'11/11/1 (I IJ7 I), 71' !-IIII'IIIIIIII}!I'I' .,HIIII, 'rhe (19()2), 1'J7, II)S, 203 1,lIll'rl'lll+ "",e, Ilri;ln, 21() '\c\\ l-follywood, 20, 23, 2.:; h, 27 H, :iq, 7 2 , I)!>, q7, IHI, IS7, ,SS, I(JO 1,222,13:;, 237, 2-t-+, 273, 27(); st'c a/so post-

cl.h,ical I lollv wI)(ld \CII']lIcA' LII)' (H)()I), q7 ,\ci II il IUJII I II Call5e (111.;.,),27,3° RNA-!ess 11"'111'111, nil' (I l)-t'l), .1h Red /)1111'11 (['lS-t), 2-tS R"d R"'er (")-t~), 2,1, .,7 rdlnilit\, 23--t, -t~, 7'l-SO, 'H, 101, l0-t, 1.'.1, 173,203

5,223,22(1

Regll nllllg lI,'IIIT (Il)'l I), 250 Rl'gl'IlCra/lOl1 (J(j15), 'J(l, I-t H Rt','!:O!Cftlli()!/ (f()()7), 110, IIH

'reLn',5 h, 17,3° I, H, -t7, 211 Renol, \Iichad, 2,S, 2'i'l Rl'publie, .'S ReplllslO11 (I I)h;), Iho RCSefi.'OIl" J)ogs (1, "I, I3 III SCUIIIII 1'1(11111, 'I'llI' ("HS), Ih" 22X sC\:ualitl, l)3, 1(10, I(q, 1()7, '7 2 .1, ")2 3, 217,22),23' 2, zho Simpson, I )on, 23() Sin~LT, Ben, 3S-l), ..2, H, "l), 2.1 .. Slligill'ilI II/{, R'illI (,,),,2), 23, X7, l)1, liS, Ill[-" Sill,~/c IUilc 1'1'1110;'- ("ll)2), IXln Sirk, J)ou~L!s, 30, 31, V, .. 0, +7, .. S'l) Sl,uII SCIlSC, Till' (Il)l)l)), I SX, I hi, '7X, I Xo Sklar, Robert, 2 Slotkin, Rich,ml, 12, .17, f>1, (,2, (,7, 7.. , I q, 12.. SlIol(lI (2000), qS Sobchack, Vilien, 12, I(q, IS." lXX, Il)", Ill(, S"Uier BllIc (Il)70), 2.1, 7 2 , 7f> Sol,lUs (1l)72), 201 .\'Olllt' Camc Rlfl/Ill",!!, (I (59), 32 SOil OrFUIlIA'(//sIOIl (Il),)!)), 1f>7 SOllg 01'.\ Ol'll'il) , (I (170), l)(' Sol' IIII' '5 ClIoi",' (Il)X2), 2f>S

Sof>r,lIiliS, Til"II,~/,'J RII,I'IIIIII (1l)"2), X.. SI 0 I' '!"rcA, C1'\ series), Ill', "17, Il)l), 20(,n SI'II TrcA' 1/: 'Illm" (I ')7i1), I7.i SlIllIr" (1I)l)3), lila

SII','1111[/ /'/1/1

,'h '(000,) ,>lU 'S/!.I[){ ,11".\ .I/lil/II ' " 'lh '(btbI) II))!! .Illl/11

(Z I ',)~~1I,1( [

Db ,(,'tb I) PIiU "1// /'111 1 Ii/'Illi/Ii { 0l) 1I,1I1!(f II' .I,Il(f "/I

usL;: 's lU '1101'/ ,11// /'111' /'111/1 SL 'L~ '(O~bI) rt, .1,1/.,,11/,111/1

'(,til[) /,"111-'1 .I,y" II

S~;: 'lleuH 'llO[SUI\\

f

I 0,

'(~I)I)]) I,I/w/d .JI.IO/SII/,ud

z~z 'I ~z

I) IZ

,l' 'UI'[\ 'Slll\'IIII\\ ,(III"'d